Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Minister as I must leave shortly. If I leave before he responds, it will not be because of disrespect, as I have a double booking.

I appreciate the efforts of the Minister and recognise that improvements are being made. However, the essence of the discussion is whether we should proceed in a piecemeal manner. Can we not make some really radical improvements that would alter circumstances dramatically?

While the Minister has spoken about addressing welfare issues and dealing with cruelty and while some measures are, undoubtedly, being put in place in this regard, some of the activities about which we are talking are inherently cruel. In this sense, regulation is only minimising the damage. The root cause of the problem is the actual activities. I refer to digging for foxes, hare coursing, fur farming, etc. This must be recognised up-front.

There are 11 amendments to the section. One, on the tracing of dogs, has been accepted in principle, which we welcome. We accept that there will probably be some form of amendment on Report Stage; we accept the Minister's bona fides in this regard. Of the ten remaining amendments, four deal with fur farming. The Minister has stated this practice is lawful in a number of jurisdictions and that, as a consequence, we will keep it lawful here. He did not say it was banned in more countries than in which it was actually legal. We should not be following the countries that permit the activity. The industry is very small in Ireland and one of the five registered mink farms is probably in jeopardy. While we accept the Minister's point that he will increase regulation and double the inspection frequency, will he, if he is not going to ban the practice and accept an amendment in this regard, address amendment No. 73 which calls for an independent inspectorate? Would this fit in with his idea of increasing the frequency of inspections? Could we have an independent animal welfare inspectorate?

Humane eradication could be achieved. Is there a contradiction between our amendment, No. 57, and the Minister's opening statement? All we seek in this regard is a more humane method of killing the animals. If the Minister is not going to ban the activity, will he, please, agree to the animals not being gassed and being disposed of humanely? If we are to have enhanced codes of practice and better regulation, the Minister could, through the Bill, regulate the manner in which animals are exterminated. There could also be a facility, by enhancing the Bill, to deal with the conditions of the animals. If animals are to live in horrendous conditions and, ultimately, to die for their fur, we could at least upgrade their housing, increase the height of cages, improve nest boxes, ban wire mesh floors, provide enrichment toys, etc., as happens in Germany, in order that there would at least be some semblance of decency where animals are interned and, ultimately, destroyed. We could make the process as painless as possible.

There is no contradiction between amendments Nos. 57 and 73 in terms of the Minister's provision in this regard if he is not going to accept our points on providing for a ban. A large number of citizens in Ireland believe fur farming should be banned. We do not really accept that it should not be. The industry is not a significant employer and does not engage in a worthy activity in this day and age. We, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider his position on the issue. As he seems adamant, we will not waste members' time.

However, I appeal to him to consider amendments Nos. 57 and 73 as they could incorporate some of his desires to better regulate this area, while, at the same time, moving to appease our concerns.

The foundation amendments are Nos. 25 and 26 which deal with activities which in and of themselves are inherently cruel to animals. Dealing with animal welfare while allowing these activities to continue is a contradiction. It would be preferable to remove the exclusion of hare coursing from the Bill's protection. The very fact that it is excluded means the activity is recognised as cruel and hares are not getting the benefit of the legislation's protection. I disagree fundamentally with the Minister when he says he will not get rid of this activity because it provides many people with a livelihood and is a tradition. I thought he was a little more enlightened than this. Both counts really do not stand up. On the one hand, there is definitive evidence that the number of coursing clubs is in rapid decline and that the number of people following this appalling activity is, thankfully, falling. It is confined to a minority of counties. There are some who may make a living from coursing. However, other jurisdictions have proved these jobs can be maintained by switching to drag coursing. It does not make the activity any more appealing, but it does remove the cruelty aspect. In fact, the introduction of drag coursing may actually see a rebirth of the activity with more participants. Those who are appalled by the bloodlust attached to coursing may follow drag coursing. The idea that coursing is a tradition is just too bad. It was a tradition to throw people to the lions in the Colosseum on a Friday night in downtown Rome, but that did not mean it was a worthy activity. Traditionally, there were freak shows at which people with abnormalities were put on display for public ridicule and some form of entertainment. In a modern society, getting entertainment out of the pain and degradation of animals is not a worthy tradition and is an activity from which an enlightened society would move away. To protect cruelty and barbarity in the name of tradition does not add up. All the statistics from the National Parks and Wildlife Service about the cruelty caused to hares in the run-up to coursing events, how they are terrorised and released to be captured again are unacceptable. I will be pressing this amendment as many in society find it reprehensible.

For similar reasons, I will be pressing on some of the other activities highlighted, most particularly the digging out of foxes. The Minister has said he has been engaged with some organisations to regulate this activity. Allowing dogs to go underground to dig out foxes is in no way acceptable. These points need to be taken on board.

I know the Minister does not agree with the principles in these two amendments. However, it is important to highlight them in order that he knows from where we are coming. The issue will not go away. If it is not addressed in this Animal Health and Welfare Bill, I am sure we will be discussing it in the next one. Why will he not address the issues involved as enlightened society is moving towards our view?

Amendment No. 67 concerns monitoring greyhounds and coursing. I cannot see why the Minister would have a problem with this. While I do not agree with animals being involved in any form of entertainment, amendment No. 13 concerns the care of animals before and after certain activities. Does the Minister have an objection to this provision which could be incorporated in the legislation?

The remaining amendments concern the use of animals in circuses and the protection of wild birds. Fingal County Council was the first local authority to move to prohibit circuses. Many will not go to a circus if it has performing animals. I have no problems with trapeze artists and other performers – I do not really like clowns, to be honest – but I do have a problem with exploiting animals, particularly wild ones. It is not natural for an elephant to put its foot on a ball, stand on a stool dancing to a whip or raise its leg on demand. Getting an elephant to do this requires barbaric cruelty. To have them transported as they are in inhumane conditions in an unnatural terrain to them in the name of entertainment is appalling. We have circuses with performing penguins, which is abhorrent. The argument that a child would never have seen a tiger or an elephant years ago except at a circus may have some merit to it. However, in this day and age of enhanced travel, Internet access and better education, people can see animals in their natural environment. In many countries the use of animals, particularly wild ones, in performing circuses is outlawed and a growing number of local authorities is taking up this call. When Fingal County Council moved on it several years ago, we were inundated with support. I would like to take my children to a circus, but I am not going to one in which an animal is exploited. Some circus providers have stopped using animals because of this. In this day and age when funds are tight and we have all been lobbied by community arts projects to protect the Arts Council budget from further cuts, the idea that the council still funds circuses with performing animals is appalling. We are hoping the Minister will take on board our amendment.

We also want to limit the hunting of birds. BirdWatch Ireland has pinpointed several concerns about putting in place protocols for reporting on the species hunted and their numbers to allow us to monitor the levels of hunting on a national level. There is a need to ensure changes in hunting pressures can be monitored by the Department. What mechanisms are in place to monitor them, as well as the number of licences awarded? We need to review the list of bird species which are allowed to be hunted. Protecting our natural environment is important for its tourism potential. I agree with Deputy Michael Colreavy that if we are talking about serious regulation, we must remove the public sector recruitment embargo in this area. Otherwise, many of these measures will be unsustainable.